p.s. mother and child both doing well!
Sunday, February 7, 2016
ALLISON LENZ, WELCOME TO OUR WORLD
It’s not very often that a liberal, small town blogger gets to announce an earth-shattering once-in-a-lifetime event, but last evening, at 9:41 p.m., Allison Scarlett Lenz entered this world and took her first breath, saw her first light and felt her mother’s warm touch for the first time. With Allison’s arrival, Sabrina Lenz became a mom, Travis Lenz became a dad (God help this world) and a host of welcoming family and friends were filled with the joy that only newborns bring. Welcome to our world, Allison. We’re very happy to see you!
p.s. mother and child both doing well!
p.s. mother and child both doing well!
EXPOSING THE VIPER’S BROOD
If you have not already seen the movie “Spotlight,” starring Michael Keaton, Rachel McAdams, Mark Ruffalo, Liev Schreiber and Brian d’Arcy James, go see it! It’s time and money well-spent. Spotlight is the behind-the-scenes story of The Boston Globe’s investigation of sexual abuse by priests in the Catholic Church and the systematic cover-up of that abuse by the Catholic hierarchy. The movie is both accurate and insightful in portraying the newspaper reporters who broke the original story as well as the church leaders and their lawyers who fought the Globe’s investigation and drive to bring the sexual abuse scandal to light. Spotlight is not just a well-crafted movie. It’s a piece of compelling social commentary and deserves any awards it musters.
I was thinking about Spotlight yesterday when I read that Peter Saunders, himself a victim of sexual abuse by a priest, resigned from his position on the Catholic Church’s papal commission on sexual abuse by the clergy. Saunders has been highly critical of what he perceived as “foot dragging” by the Vatican and the commission he departed when it came to acknowledging the true sources of the sexual abuse scandal and committing to concrete and effecting reform in the way victims are treated and their abusers are handled. It is sad that the Catholic Church continues on the ruinous path of denial. The effect of its foot dragging is the loss of moral authority.
You cannot turn a blind eye to the raping of thousands of children and then lay claim to a mantle of morality. There’s a reason why Jesus called the religious leaders of his day hypocrites and a vipers brood. The Pharisees and Sadducees, as they were known, spent countless hours denouncing the morality of those who didn’t conform to the dictates of the Hebrew religious elite, but those same leaders bore the poisonous fangs of a serpent without a trace of human compassion or warmth in their hearts. The Catholic Church today exhibits the same venomous tendencies as the Jewish clergy in Jesus’ day, and that is why it loses more members each day than it gains.
When a man like Peter Saunders throws in the towel, a man’s whose love for the Church remained strong despite having suffered sexual abuse by a priest, something is terribly wrong with the core of the Catholic Church and change is desperately needed.
The nuns in school always claimed that the laity was the Church. If that’s the case, the people in the pews have their work cut out for them.
I was thinking about Spotlight yesterday when I read that Peter Saunders, himself a victim of sexual abuse by a priest, resigned from his position on the Catholic Church’s papal commission on sexual abuse by the clergy. Saunders has been highly critical of what he perceived as “foot dragging” by the Vatican and the commission he departed when it came to acknowledging the true sources of the sexual abuse scandal and committing to concrete and effecting reform in the way victims are treated and their abusers are handled. It is sad that the Catholic Church continues on the ruinous path of denial. The effect of its foot dragging is the loss of moral authority.
You cannot turn a blind eye to the raping of thousands of children and then lay claim to a mantle of morality. There’s a reason why Jesus called the religious leaders of his day hypocrites and a vipers brood. The Pharisees and Sadducees, as they were known, spent countless hours denouncing the morality of those who didn’t conform to the dictates of the Hebrew religious elite, but those same leaders bore the poisonous fangs of a serpent without a trace of human compassion or warmth in their hearts. The Catholic Church today exhibits the same venomous tendencies as the Jewish clergy in Jesus’ day, and that is why it loses more members each day than it gains.
When a man like Peter Saunders throws in the towel, a man’s whose love for the Church remained strong despite having suffered sexual abuse by a priest, something is terribly wrong with the core of the Catholic Church and change is desperately needed.
The nuns in school always claimed that the laity was the Church. If that’s the case, the people in the pews have their work cut out for them.
SUPER BOWL PREDICTION
Panthers 35, Broncos 17
The aftermath:
Broncos 24, Panthers 10...just goes to show how little I know about football predictions!
The aftermath:
Broncos 24, Panthers 10...just goes to show how little I know about football predictions!
Friday, February 5, 2016
THE TWO REVOLUTIONS
“What’s wrong with a revolution?” ~ CNN Journalist, Anderson Cooper, questioning Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton during the February 3rd Town Hall debate with fellow Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders
Clinton’s response: “That’s for Senator Sanders to explain.”
My response: It depends on the kind of revolution you’re talking about. Figurative revolutions that bring about a significant improvement in the lives of an entire population are good things; literal revolutions that result in the senseless spilling of massive amounts of blood are not!
The current presidential campaign season has highlighted the fact that in America, two very distinct groups are seeking revolution, but the revolutions they promote involve diametrically opposing goals and the tools they employ could not be deemed more different. The idealistic youth at Wednesday’s Democratic Town Hall debate seek change in the way government responds to the needs of the people it represents and the instrument of their revolution is the ballot box. The other group promoting revolution is the Tea Party wing of the Republican Party. Their goal is a crippled government that cannot respond to the needs of its people and the instrument of their revolution is the barrel of a gun.
I support the student’s call for a figurative revolution in the way government supports the right of its people to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I find value in the notion that a government by the people, of the people and for the people is a government worth having. I cheer the enthusiasm of America’s idealistic youth, and I recognize that this Nation’s future success will depend in large measure on the progress those youth are able to obtain, but a word of caution is in order.
The revolutionaries of the far-right have an insatiable appetite for bloodshed and they are heavily armed, and itching for a fight.
We saw it in 2010 when the Tea Party’s loudest mouthpiece, Sarah Palin posted on her website the name of Arizona Representative Gabby Giffords in the crosshairs of a rifle scope and then several months later a Tea Party sympathizer attempted to assassinate Giffords near Tucson, killing six and wounding thirteen others in the process. We saw it in 2014 when agents showed up to confiscate the cattle of Tea Party activist Cliven Bundy for non-payment of grazing fees owed to the citizens of the United States – that’s you and me. Hundreds of militiamen showed up with assault rifles, ready to gun-down the federal agents who were just doing their job. We just saw it again last month in the armed takeover of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon by Tea Party militia men who threatened to gun-down anyone who attempted to dislodge them. The fugitive LaVoy Finicum, a member of the group, tried to draw his gun on federal agents as were arresting him and he was killed in the process. That’s the kind of revolution Tea Party Republicans are seeking, the one brought about by the long barrel of a gun.
The next time somebody starts calling for a revolution, it’s wise to ask what kind they’re suggestion. It’s not wise to show up at a gunfight armed only with a ballot box.
Clinton’s response: “That’s for Senator Sanders to explain.”
My response: It depends on the kind of revolution you’re talking about. Figurative revolutions that bring about a significant improvement in the lives of an entire population are good things; literal revolutions that result in the senseless spilling of massive amounts of blood are not!
The current presidential campaign season has highlighted the fact that in America, two very distinct groups are seeking revolution, but the revolutions they promote involve diametrically opposing goals and the tools they employ could not be deemed more different. The idealistic youth at Wednesday’s Democratic Town Hall debate seek change in the way government responds to the needs of the people it represents and the instrument of their revolution is the ballot box. The other group promoting revolution is the Tea Party wing of the Republican Party. Their goal is a crippled government that cannot respond to the needs of its people and the instrument of their revolution is the barrel of a gun.
I support the student’s call for a figurative revolution in the way government supports the right of its people to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I find value in the notion that a government by the people, of the people and for the people is a government worth having. I cheer the enthusiasm of America’s idealistic youth, and I recognize that this Nation’s future success will depend in large measure on the progress those youth are able to obtain, but a word of caution is in order.
The revolutionaries of the far-right have an insatiable appetite for bloodshed and they are heavily armed, and itching for a fight.
We saw it in 2010 when the Tea Party’s loudest mouthpiece, Sarah Palin posted on her website the name of Arizona Representative Gabby Giffords in the crosshairs of a rifle scope and then several months later a Tea Party sympathizer attempted to assassinate Giffords near Tucson, killing six and wounding thirteen others in the process. We saw it in 2014 when agents showed up to confiscate the cattle of Tea Party activist Cliven Bundy for non-payment of grazing fees owed to the citizens of the United States – that’s you and me. Hundreds of militiamen showed up with assault rifles, ready to gun-down the federal agents who were just doing their job. We just saw it again last month in the armed takeover of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon by Tea Party militia men who threatened to gun-down anyone who attempted to dislodge them. The fugitive LaVoy Finicum, a member of the group, tried to draw his gun on federal agents as were arresting him and he was killed in the process. That’s the kind of revolution Tea Party Republicans are seeking, the one brought about by the long barrel of a gun.
The next time somebody starts calling for a revolution, it’s wise to ask what kind they’re suggestion. It’s not wise to show up at a gunfight armed only with a ballot box.
Wednesday, February 3, 2016
THE POWER OF ONE VOICE
Nobody was home this morning when I got into the shower. At some point between shampooing my hair and rinsing, I started singing a couple of bars from Nessun Dorma, an aria that’s part of Puccini’s opera Turandot. My wife and I saw a performance of Turandot this past weekend and I can’t seem to shake the music from my head. It’s a good thing nobody was home at the time, because my rendition of Nessun Dorma wouldn’t have been recognizable to anybody, except perhaps my wife, who’s suffered through eighteen years of hearing my off-key shower singing and has developed a good ear for bad voices.
While eating lunch I was reading an article on campaign financing and the author was lamenting the vast sums of money being pumped into this year’s presidential campaigns. When I came across the word “voice” in the article, I my first thought was about my shower singing and then I asked myself, how much power is in my voice? And from there, an even more interesting question arose – in a democracy, does it matter?
I can speak pretty forcefully when I have to, and I have the necessary linguistic and intellectual skills to deliver a very persuasive argument in the heat of any verbal battle, but even my voice will only travel so far, and I’m keenly aware of my tonal limitations. I can write, too, and though the number of readers of this blog is negligible, the Internet provides a platform for disseminating my views in case any dare to read them. My point is I’m expressing myself. My words have power, albeit in a limited sense, because very few are hearing them.
But what if I my words, or my voice for that matter, had more power? What if I could yell so loudly that nobody could hear anyone but me? What if I could drown out all other conversation except the conversation I wanted everyone to hear? What if the power behind my voice could stifle the voices of all opinions contrary to mine? What if I could somehow censor, or silence, or deny a meaningful voice to anyone who doesn’t meet with my approval? Wouldn’t that be grand?
You’re probably mouthing the words or thinking, “No, it would not,” and I’m inclined to agree with you, at least the part of me that’s not self-centered or egotistical, but there is something that can accomplish all the above scenarios and we often don’t give it a second thought. What is it? Money!
The United States Supreme Court in its Citizens United decision several years ago ruled that money is a form of speech. It has a voice and the more money a person has the louder their voice becomes. In fact, a person with a large enough sum of money can have a voice so loud that it drowns out all conversation except the conversation that person wants everyone to hear. With enough money, a person can stifle the voices of all contrary opinions and deny a meaningful voice to anyone who doesn’t meet with that person’s approval. The adage “money talks” has never been truer, and the people without money might as well be singing in the shower.
While eating lunch I was reading an article on campaign financing and the author was lamenting the vast sums of money being pumped into this year’s presidential campaigns. When I came across the word “voice” in the article, I my first thought was about my shower singing and then I asked myself, how much power is in my voice? And from there, an even more interesting question arose – in a democracy, does it matter?
I can speak pretty forcefully when I have to, and I have the necessary linguistic and intellectual skills to deliver a very persuasive argument in the heat of any verbal battle, but even my voice will only travel so far, and I’m keenly aware of my tonal limitations. I can write, too, and though the number of readers of this blog is negligible, the Internet provides a platform for disseminating my views in case any dare to read them. My point is I’m expressing myself. My words have power, albeit in a limited sense, because very few are hearing them.
But what if I my words, or my voice for that matter, had more power? What if I could yell so loudly that nobody could hear anyone but me? What if I could drown out all other conversation except the conversation I wanted everyone to hear? What if the power behind my voice could stifle the voices of all opinions contrary to mine? What if I could somehow censor, or silence, or deny a meaningful voice to anyone who doesn’t meet with my approval? Wouldn’t that be grand?
You’re probably mouthing the words or thinking, “No, it would not,” and I’m inclined to agree with you, at least the part of me that’s not self-centered or egotistical, but there is something that can accomplish all the above scenarios and we often don’t give it a second thought. What is it? Money!
The United States Supreme Court in its Citizens United decision several years ago ruled that money is a form of speech. It has a voice and the more money a person has the louder their voice becomes. In fact, a person with a large enough sum of money can have a voice so loud that it drowns out all conversation except the conversation that person wants everyone to hear. With enough money, a person can stifle the voices of all contrary opinions and deny a meaningful voice to anyone who doesn’t meet with that person’s approval. The adage “money talks” has never been truer, and the people without money might as well be singing in the shower.
Tuesday, February 2, 2016
PUNXSUTAWNEY PHIL’S POLITICAL PROGNOSTICATION
America’s most famous prognosticating groundhog, Punxsutawney Phil crawled out of his burrow this morning and announced to the crowd of anxious onlookers that, given the current political climate and the dark shadow cast upon this Nation by GOP presidential candidates, there will be at least six more weeks of Cruz and Trump, and probably a great deal more.
The assembly of twenty thousand well-wishers gathered at the annual Punxsutawney Ground Hog Day festival. The crowd was initially in good cheer when Punxsutawney Phil emerged from his secluded burrow, grabbed a nearby microphone and proclaimed, “It’s a great day to be an American!” However, when the applause and cheers subsided and Punxsutawney Phil began speaking to the crowd about yesterday’s primary results in Iowa, the public mood turned noticeably darker.
“You’ve got to be kidding,” an elderly wheelchair-bound woman shouted from the front row. “What’s going to happen to my Medicare and Social Security check?”
“Gone to the highest campaign donor,” another man quickly yelled. A wave of anxiety covered the elderly people present as they realized that a Trump or Cruz presidency would mark the beginning of the end of government support for elderly programs and their safety net.
“What about my son?” a mother of a Marine Corp Lieutenant asked with concern in her voice. “Is he going back into another senseless war?”
“Looks that way,” Punxsutawney Phil responded. “Both Cruz and Trump are itching for a chance to send your son off to die. Enjoy the boy while you still can.” Two women standing nearby offered comfort to the Marine’s distressed mother who began crying uncontrollably.
A visibly anxious Hispanic woman in her mid-twenties raised her hand and asked the famous groundhog, “What will happen to my teen-aged brother who came to visit me last year to escape a Mexican drug cartel’s death contract?”
“He’ll be sent back, no questions asked!” the groundhog replied.
“But they’ll kill him!” the shaking woman replied.
“Your boy means nothing to Trump or Cruz,” Phil replied.
A bald woman stepped forward from the crowd and asked, “What about my chemo? I finally got health insurance through Obamacare and the chemo it pays for helps me stay alive. Will I be able to continue getting chemo treatment?”
“Start planning your funeral,” the Punxsutawney groundhog answered to the stunned crowd. “Neither Cruz nor Trump care about the sick.” With that, Punxsutawney Phil returned to his burrow. We can only hope he’s wrong.
The assembly of twenty thousand well-wishers gathered at the annual Punxsutawney Ground Hog Day festival. The crowd was initially in good cheer when Punxsutawney Phil emerged from his secluded burrow, grabbed a nearby microphone and proclaimed, “It’s a great day to be an American!” However, when the applause and cheers subsided and Punxsutawney Phil began speaking to the crowd about yesterday’s primary results in Iowa, the public mood turned noticeably darker.
“You’ve got to be kidding,” an elderly wheelchair-bound woman shouted from the front row. “What’s going to happen to my Medicare and Social Security check?”
“Gone to the highest campaign donor,” another man quickly yelled. A wave of anxiety covered the elderly people present as they realized that a Trump or Cruz presidency would mark the beginning of the end of government support for elderly programs and their safety net.
“What about my son?” a mother of a Marine Corp Lieutenant asked with concern in her voice. “Is he going back into another senseless war?”
“Looks that way,” Punxsutawney Phil responded. “Both Cruz and Trump are itching for a chance to send your son off to die. Enjoy the boy while you still can.” Two women standing nearby offered comfort to the Marine’s distressed mother who began crying uncontrollably.
A visibly anxious Hispanic woman in her mid-twenties raised her hand and asked the famous groundhog, “What will happen to my teen-aged brother who came to visit me last year to escape a Mexican drug cartel’s death contract?”
“He’ll be sent back, no questions asked!” the groundhog replied.
“But they’ll kill him!” the shaking woman replied.
“Your boy means nothing to Trump or Cruz,” Phil replied.
A bald woman stepped forward from the crowd and asked, “What about my chemo? I finally got health insurance through Obamacare and the chemo it pays for helps me stay alive. Will I be able to continue getting chemo treatment?”
“Start planning your funeral,” the Punxsutawney groundhog answered to the stunned crowd. “Neither Cruz nor Trump care about the sick.” With that, Punxsutawney Phil returned to his burrow. We can only hope he’s wrong.
Monday, February 1, 2016
THEY’LL KNOW WE ARE CHRISTIANS BY OUR…
When I was in eighth grade at St. Patrick’s Elementary School, I was very fond of the then-popular Christian song, They’ll Know We Are Christians by Our Love. It was a catchy tune easily played on guitars that I loved to hear, and it combined the social consciousness of the sixties with the timeless message of Christ’s social gospel. The song lyrics resonated with me back then and have ever since, and those words go a long way toward explaining why I consider myself a liberal with an affinity for the poor and the oppressed.
Sadly, a lot has changed since my elementary school years and I dare say that many Christians today are no longer known by their love. They’re known instead for their disdain for the poor, their callous indifference to the plight of refugees and their hard-hearted attitude toward the suffering of those who are sick and infirmed. They are known by their loathing of women seeking reproductive freedom and their intolerance of individuals who practice different faiths or no faith at all. They’re known by what they take and not the things they give, by their criticism and not their compassion and by their arrogance and not their humility. They are known by the bombs they drop and not the people they uplift, the sins they commit and not the righteousness they claim and by their practice of discrimination and not their profession of man’s equality.
It’s no wonder that much of Christianity today has become synonymous with hypocrisy of the highest order. How could it not when so many professed believers have rejected the central edict of Christianity - the command to love one another - in favor of selfish personal interests? They use to know Christians by their love, but not so much anymore. How sad!
Sadly, a lot has changed since my elementary school years and I dare say that many Christians today are no longer known by their love. They’re known instead for their disdain for the poor, their callous indifference to the plight of refugees and their hard-hearted attitude toward the suffering of those who are sick and infirmed. They are known by their loathing of women seeking reproductive freedom and their intolerance of individuals who practice different faiths or no faith at all. They’re known by what they take and not the things they give, by their criticism and not their compassion and by their arrogance and not their humility. They are known by the bombs they drop and not the people they uplift, the sins they commit and not the righteousness they claim and by their practice of discrimination and not their profession of man’s equality.
It’s no wonder that much of Christianity today has become synonymous with hypocrisy of the highest order. How could it not when so many professed believers have rejected the central edict of Christianity - the command to love one another - in favor of selfish personal interests? They use to know Christians by their love, but not so much anymore. How sad!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)